Cartoonist: Mohammed drawing not Mohammed

Although it gained infamy as ‘the Mohammed cartoon’, Kurt Westergaard says drawing is not of Mohammed

The cartoon that caused international uproar and rioting among Muslims was apparently not what it seemed.

In 2005, Jyllands-Posten newspaper ran its now infamous feature with several different artists’ drawings under the heading ‘Faces of Mohammed’ – the most well-known being Kurt Westergaard’s contribution depicting a man with a bomb in his turban.

But according to Westergaard, the drawing was not the prophet Mohammed, to which it is commonly referred, but is instead a would-be terrorist.

‘The drawing shows that there are terrorists who use aspects of Islam as their spiritual ammunition,’ he told Politiken newspaper. ‘That’s what the drawing shows and that’s what I’ve always said it showed.’

But although it was Jyllands-Posten that gave the cartoon series its title, Westergaard blames many imams for creating the inflammatory situation that arose from the drawings’ publication.

‘The overall theme of the series was Mohammed,’ admitted Westergaard. ‘But many of the other drawings also depicted things other than Mohammed.’

‘I just chose to draw a terrorist. But it was a perfect opportunity for imams and other Islamic authorities, who operate using hate as the fuel to arouse common feelings, to say it was Mohammed.’

Westergaard said that the fate of the drawing’s interpretation was well out of his hands not long after it was published.

‘The interpretation problem will always be there now, so you have to see it however you want,’ he said. ‘But I don’t know whether that’s a misunderstanding or not. Terrorists often have Islam and Mohammed as their religion.’

And Westergaard isn’t apologising for his views or for the drawing and he criticised artists and writers who have not supported the publication of the drawing.

‘These comments don’t mean that I’m sorry about the drawing. It shows how terrorists are inspired to kill. And I’ve been proven right on that account, because someone tried to kill me for making the drawing,’ he said.

‘It’s unfortunate that so many creative minds have decided to take exception to it, because if they don’t champion freedom of expression, who will?’

Comments

Only CPHPOST registered users can write comments!

wor - This reminds me of...

|2010-02-09 14:44:12

...the scene in the Eddie Murphy film "Distinguished Gentlemen",
where there were these two congressmen that just had found out that they had been exposed and were trying to think of a way to come out of the mess smelling of roses.

Then one of the congressmen says "The question is: How do we get the s**t back in the horse?".

I think Mr Westergaard has been asking the above question and the "It's not Mohammed" is his response.

Heidi aka MissFuzzy

|2010-02-10 00:26:33

Lol. wor, I thought of an even earlier cultural reference--the Jon Lovitz pathologically lying character on SNL.

"Yeah, that's the ticket, it was just a random drawing of a guy in a turban. Yeah!"

I for one am looking forward to how he explains leaving a disabled child alone with a guy wtih an ax.

wor - To "MissFuzzy"

|2010-02-10 12:58:25

Yeah, that's the ticket...LOL.

Not being from the US of A, Ihad to Google that one, and apparently the character is called "Tommy Flanagan".

Yeah, that's the ticket...I'll add that to my list of useful phrases.

My advice to Mr Westergaard is: "When in a hole, stop digging"

tomnashdk - Hole?

|2010-02-10 20:55:29

What hole? ;)

wor - To "tomnashdk"

|2010-02-11 08:33:16

....very, very good :-)

...I am actually crying with laughter as I write this when I think about "which hole" Mr Westergaard is trying to dig himself out of.

...Never too early in the day for such a good laugh, THANKS :-)

npandjmclay - wor....

|2010-02-11 09:07:42

Yes! This man has revelled in infamy, costs us all money to protect him and now, probably tired of it all, wants to pretend it was all a big mistake. Creep.

JFD - That's right NP...

|2010-02-11 12:40:21

... let's also not forget that as a direct result of his "art":
1. The Danish embassy in Pakistan was bombed on June 2, 2008 killing at least 6 and wounding 24.

2. Arla lost millions in revenue due to boycotted products

3. Downtown Copenhagen /JP and the CPH Post HQ by default was nearly bombed. Image the center of Copenhagen ravished by a bomb and the long lasting effect that would have had on our community and loss of life and limb of innocent people.

After CW's art has made him internationally famous and he has gained financially because of it, what an act completely lacking integrity it is now to say "oh it wasn't Muhammed" after so many others have suffered dearly because of it.

pedrobl - Freedom of expression

|2010-02-14 15:03:07

I can't believe what I read in the comments above!

You criticise Mr. Westergaard for saying that the cartoon is not from Muhammed after all that has happened... Do you really think that if he had said that when it was published, the reaction would've been different? Are you really blaming him for the attacks?

This actually reminds me of blaming women for being raped because of their clothing, or their looks, or their attitude.

I understand that Danish people suffered pretty much alone defending the FREEDOM of EXPRESSION. I believe the rest of europe should've shown more support, but your are blaming the wrong guy:

It's the intolerance of certain religions that is to blame. Just because some people believe that an all so powerful god gets offended if we draw images of his prophet, should we loose freedom of expression? What if, i don't know, black jeans offend them, should we stop wearing those too?

I actually believe the opposite, we should NOT tolerate any religion that defends ANYTHING against our basic human rights. I believe we should NOT tolerate any religion that discriminates against women, or homosexuals, or freedom of expression.

It's THEM who should become more tolerant, and accept that if I want to mock, make fun of, or ridicule their beliefs, they have the right to be offended, and do the same to me.

It's violence and advocating violence we should be against, not freedom of expression.

wor - To "pedrobl"

|2010-02-14 23:13:15

Thanks for your comment.

I find myself in both disagreement and agreement with points in your comment.

POINTS IN DISAGREEMENT:
You ask "Do you really think that if he had said that when it was published, the reaction would've been different?"

My answer to the above question is that he would have gotten criticised for that comment EARLIER by the same people who are criticising him now, and years later Mr Westergaard would be able to say that he said "all along" that it was not Mohammed, each time the issue came up over the years.

Also, if Mr Westergaard made his "it's not Mohammed" comment at the time the issue became news, people would start asking "so what exactly does a terrorist look like?".
It's a bit like asking someone to draw a picture of a "racist" or a "thief". What one draws in response to the question ONLY reveals one's own prejudices...and there, I feel, lays the root cause of the problem...specifically in Mr Westergaard's prejudices.

You ask "Are you really blaming him for the attacks?"

My answer to the above question is "he is partly responsible for the whole mess and acted recklessly, although I do not justify violent reactions, and believe that people are responsible for their own actions"

You say also "This actually reminds me of blaming women for being raped because of their clothing, or their looks, or their attitude."

My first answer to the point above is that there is no comparison.
But if I were to continue with your anology, my second answer would be "who exactly is being raped?"...in my eyes "rape" is an unprovoked attack, where the "rapist" may "feel provoked by the womens clothing", and then attacks.

So, if you look at the whole "cartoon" incident, my questions to YOU would be "Who exactly is being attacked and by whom?", and "why does the attacker feel provoked to attack?".
PLEASE ANSWER.

POINT IN AGREEMENT:
You say "I actually believe the opposite, we should NOT tolerate any religion that defends ANYTHING against our basic human rights."

I agree completely with the above statement, and would add that this would then apply to many belief systems, and in each case where a "sin" (to use religious parlance) has been committed, and this would pertain to cases that have left a legacy that has not been corrected for, due to the original "sin".

You also say "It's violence and advocating violence we should be against, not freedom of expression."

I agree again with your above statement, BUT would point out to you that "violence" takes more than one form, two of which being "phsyical violence" and "psychological violence"....Violence usaully begets violence.

One could suggest that the Jyllands-Posten and Kurt Westergaard's "Mohammed cartoon’s" were(are) a form of "psychological violence" (disguised as free speech) AND THE ATTACK WAS UNPROVOKED.

I have tried to answer your questions and points, and would like you to ponder over the question I asked earlier in this post about "who is the attacker, and why does the attacker feel provoked to attack?".

I stand by my original comment.

Reply welcomed

pedrobl - To "wor"

|2010-02-14 23:10:55

Hi wor, thanks for your comments. My answer:
"...Mr Westergaard would be able to say that he said "all along" that it was not Mohammed, each time the issue came up over the years"

... and you think the attacks would not have happened? The cartoons were published on September 2005. The attacks started in 2006, after a few imams toured around pro-islamic countries with a dossier filled with lies about how islam was treated in Denmark. (Wikipedia)

Following your reasoning, I could ask now: was it the cartoons, or the dossier that provoked the attacks?

And we are still not close to the point. You ask: "Who exactly is being attacked and by whom?", and "why does the attacker feel provoked to attack?"

1. The danish people were attacked, by radical muslims.

2. Because their religion forbids drawing images of the prophet, much less mocking him.

It does not make sense to limit our freedom of expression when we might offend someone, otherwise it is not freedom of expression. If I say something that it's a lie about you, you have also the right of accusing me of defamation.

The problem is that we give too much importance to people's religious beliefs, even when these beliefs go against other human rights, or discriminate women, or sexual behaviours, or whatever.

My point is: religious beliefs should not have this special status, they should be treated as as any other idea that can be discussed, criticise, mock, or ridicule.

Ask yourself the following: would you be so upset with the drawings if they ridiculed the pope? These are probably published every day, and it's not even news. It's the reaction what we should condemn and not the drawings, even if they offend us.

Lastly: "One could suggest that the Jyllands-Posten and Kurt Westergaard's "Mohammed cartoon’s" were(are) a form of "psychological violence" (disguised as free speech)"

I hope it's not you suggesting it, it's absurd and ridiculous.

deka - I smoked it, but didnt inhail..

|2010-02-14 23:28:58

The absurdity of the statement that it was in fact not Mohamed is only overshadowed by the act of leaving a child alone to face a deranged man with an ax. Seems to me,,,these actions speak volumes about the person.
This reminds me of the latest “opps” from DF , where the politician publicly says “Muslim men beat and rape their daughters and wife’s” .. only to be forced to retract and say “ I didn’t mean it that way,,Im sorry if it was taken the wrong way” ,,,uhhhhhhh confuse me?????
What is suspicious by its absence is the lack of logic and clarity of thought in both these situations.
it really was not Mohamed in the drawing,,, why was this not emphasized when it happened,,,,uhhhhh,,,,, confuse me,,,but it would seem the only logical thing to do regardless of the effect it already had globally.
Freedom of speech should be our right,,,and we should protect it no matter what opposes it. If you were to survey Americans I think the majority would say it’s worth dying for.
But with this freedom also comes a responsibility!
I can ´name countless countries that have the freedom of speech to be able to have done the same thing.... but they didn’t.
To suggest one should not tolerate another religion because it discriminates is of course the morally right thing to do.
But then wouldn’t that also mean that discrimination should not be tolerated regardless of ones, religion, race, origin etc?
If this logic is true, then one may need to examine the degree of discrimination practiced right here,,, and perhaps ask if that may have some influence on the decision to do what most other countries chose not to.
The threats, violence and radical behavior that followed are inexcusable, extreme and should not be tolerated. We should all be able to say, express, and voice what we feel.....
BUT....... let’s get real here,,,,,
If everyone went around expressing themselves without any filters or "common sense" ... woman, men, gays, blacks, Asian, Swedish,,, you name it..... Would all become targets as well.

Heidi aka MissFuzzy - I am so sick to death of hearing about these repel

|2010-02-15 11:39:51

I think what is perhaps the most pathetic part of this entire debacle is the Danish media's breathless reporting of every last turn of events, and the endless panel discussions. Flog a dead horse? The Danish media are certainly milking it for what it's worth, I would say. It's almost as if they suspect their insignificance in the world, and are trying hard to appear relevant in some way.

What a joke!

wor - To "pedrobl" and "deka"

|2010-02-15 11:47:17

Thanks for your comment

To "pedrobl":-

You ask "... and you think the attacks would not have happened?"

My answer is, no, I do not think the attack would have been stopped by sayin "it's not Mohammed".
Westergaard would have gotten pulled up earlier for the comment etc.

You say "I could ask now: was it the cartoons, or the dossier that provoked the attacks?"

My answer is that the cartoons "were taken as provocation" and the dossier "was taken as provocation by those who carried out the attacks".
There is a series of events here that start with the cartoons, and instead of looking for just one person to blame, I can see that is more than one person/group responsible for the whole mess, but would give greater responsibility to the "cartoons" (I'll address why later)

You say "1. The danish people were attacked, by radical muslims." and "2. Because their religion forbids drawing images of the prophet, much less mocking him."

My answer is that I can understand how "some poeple" may feel that being prohibited from drawing a religious figure as an attack on their freedom of expression...but would point out that "some poeple" don't. Who is right?

Mocking is always dangerous, as it is the person being mocked who determines when the mocking has gone too far - mocker beware.

I asked above "who is right?", my answer is "I'm not sure", and would say that I don't feel limited by Muslims not wishing Mohammed to be drawn. I've never felt the need to draw Jesus, Buddha or any other religious figure - but that's just me.

The best way to express your freedom of expression is without mocking. This way, whatever happens, you can say well I truly did nothing overtly offensive.

The root problem here is that people are using there freedom of expression to "mock", and it was done overtly.

You say "Ask yourself the following: would you be so upset with the drawings if they ridiculed the pope?"

Well, I'm not that religious.

If I had felt that being prohibited from drawing Mohammed was limiting my freedom exprssion, I would have gone about it another way, and without mocking, by simply starting a discussion about why is it prohibited today when there have been some very old paintings/pictures of Mohammed drawn by islamic artists dating from sevral hundread years ago.

You say my point regarding "psychological violence" is "absurd and ridiculous". I disagree. because like I wrote earlier, the moment you start mocking someone you are not in control of the response of the person being mocked.

Therefore, I would try to look at what I am about to say also from the other persons point of view, in order avoid mocking, and construct the expression of my point of view so that if I got a violent reaction nobody could blame me, as it would be apparent that my point of view was well constructed without overtly mocking.

Although I say that I don't like to mock, I can be quite good at it.

Therefore, I still stand by my comment made in the first post that blatantly mocks Mr Westergaard for trying to "get s**t back into the horse" :-)

Every intelligent person should be offended by the "Its not Mohammed" response, as Mr Westergaard KNEW (I believe) that the cartoons were to be used for the "Faces of Mohammed" article in Jyllands Paosten.

Please reply

To "deka":-
You say "If everyone went around expressing themselves without any filters or "common sense" ... woman, men, gays, blacks, Asian, Swedish,,, you name it..... Would all become targets as well"

You are spot on

Name:	*
Username:	*
E-mail:	*
Password:	*
Verify Password:	*
Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required.

Cartoonist: Mohammed drawing not Mohammed

Latest Comment

Most Read

Latest News

Focus on

Failing the grade

Home sweet home?

A gift in a time of crisis